About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN2 3
CSPAN 2
MSNBCW 2
CNBC 1
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
MSNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
was peppered with questions ons petraeus scandal and the benghazi investigation and what u.n. ambassador susan rice knew when she went on the talk shows five days after the attack on the consulate. eamon javers joins us with that part of the story. >> it was president barack obama's first opportunity to talk about the david petraeus sex scandal that has rocked washington over the past several days with new details emerging seemingly every single day. but the president today told reporters that the damage from this scandal so far, anyway, has been relatively limited. >> i have no evidence at this point from what i've seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security. obviously, there's an ongoing investigation. i don't want to comment on the specifics of the investigation. >> and the president got a little bit heated today when he was talking about u.n. ambassador susan rice. he said that senators on the republican side who want to go after susan rice, they ought to come after president obama instead. >> for them to go after
important element, the u.n. dimension: respect for the territorial integrity and independence of iraq. so that meant that the action team could not go to nondeclared facilities. only delareed facilities could be -- declared facilities could be inspected. but then the security council formed out that right to, i would say, break the integrity to the -- [inaudible] so they were charged with nondeclared facilities and activities. of course, then it was, obviously, chemical, biological. but the beauty of these wars that it's tough sanctions system was in place. we have to have that also. but immediately when the inspection started, the sanction system was gradually released. so this was a functioning system, good behavior led also to these single sanctions. bad behavior, which happened, of course, quite frequently, some blockages and refusals, was met by some tough language from the security council. not from the israeli government or anyone, it was security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. so, of course, we know that this system works extremely well. it
crisis. i would argue that preceding the latest sanctions against iran, that when the p5 plus one, the u.n. security council and germany sat down to talk to iran, there is a problem sequencing. iran wants p5+1 to recognize the enriched uranium and wants iran to build confidence to undertake measures that show the international community that tehran is serious about compromising on the nuclear program. because if you think about it, it's much easier for iran to stop enriching uranium to 24%. it's much easier to stop loving for the facility, which is buried under the mountain. it's easier for iran to open up its eighth including a suspected military nuclear weapons site to international inspection. it's much harder, however, to the sanctions of the united states and its allies has spent years and years building. so right now, we find ourselves in an advantageous position vis-À-vis the republic. iran is not a dissent to power in the middle east. there's one thing however announce the military conflict with iran. the israeli attack against iran could roll back some of these achievements. it c
the ambassador. he wants to push the issue into play at the u.n., he's summoned the arab league. morisi does not he ban to attach himself to hamas let alone to the jihaddist groups, smaller ones that are operating in gaza. he has a loan that they are negotiating, a billion-plus in military assistance from the united states. he's got multiple audiences on this. he's going to appear supportive. the question is can he bring his influence? remember, the muslim brotherhood is in fact the foundation stone from which hamas emerged. he does have influence with hamas. they share a common border. hamas has to give some credibility to what he wants and to what he said. the question is, how much time do we have before this escalates to a ground incursion? jon: the palestinians profess they want their own state. hard to argue that you deserve statehood when you're launching rockets at your neighbor. >> you have three states between the mediterranean and the jordan river. have you a weak and dysfunctional palestinian authority which controls 40% of the west bank. you have a highly centralized hamas which
the waiting is the very worst part for the young part they are g u.n. g-ho they want to go in. for the older soldiers they know that some of the men they are with in these camps, eating, telling jokes and of course trailing with won't come home alive. the air war entered day six with pounding targets inside gaza. many of the targets hit were weapons depose. so far the israeli air force has hit 1300 targets killing 100 palestinians including a family of eleven which was a targeting gone wrong. this has hurt israel's days for its continued defensive. meanwhile the israeli president facebooked this home video of a family taking cover in tel-aviv main park, a father comforting his crying babies as hamas rockets fly overhead. tonight in cairo the cease-fire talks continue mediated by the egyptian intelligence service and the latest reports from there suggest there is progress being made but megyn tonight we are far from any ink on a deal that would at some point prevent these canyon, the artillery, tanks and infantry that we've seen from heading over the hills into the gaza strip to begin the gro
politically charged controversy is over u.n. ambassador susan rice's comments five days after the attack. why she blamed it on benghazi demonstrations, officials now say didn't even happen. and why she didn't mention terrorist forces? intelligence officials now believe actually targeted the u.s. consulate there. democrats emerge saying the answer was simple, she was using these unclassified cia talking points which omitted mention of extremist elements because it was still classified and could have compromised intelligence sources. >> she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. >> reporter: democrats accuse republicans of unnecessarily assassinating rice's character. >> to select ambassador rice because she used an unclassified talking point, to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. >> reporter: but republicans say the problem is rice freelanced. >> she went beyond that. and she even mentioned that under the leadership of barack obama we have decimat
diane feinstein defendeded u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. that is not my recollection of what he told us september 14th. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if the intent is to assess nate -- >> joining me now is karen finny a political analyst and armstrong williams a conservative columnist and host of the right side with armstrong williams. hello to you both. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first with you, karen. you just heard from congressman king. one of his biggest complaints was the white house held back information that this was a terrorist attack claiming this was classified. this is different from the white house's initial defense that they did call it a terrorist attack right away. are they changing their tune? >> well, what i find interesting is the way congressman king and a number of the other republicans have changed their tune from the night before the briefing and oh, what a difference it makes when you actu
. >> primarily subsaharan africa and around the world. >> around the world. the goal for hiv, there is a u.n. report that came out that is really saying hiv is -- it's not, you know, overcoming hiv is not just a dream. it's really going to become a reality if we continue on the investments and efforts we've been making. >> well, at this point, how many health care professionals do you think you can afford to send into the field? >> so we've actually committed to sending 30 to 36 doctors and nurses abroad. so about 12 into each country. we're starting three countries. malawi, tanzania and uganda. it's not a question of how many we can afford, how many should we send in the first year and really do we think to begin to make sort of -- really see on the ground taking care of patients and making a real difference to the places they're working and we as the non-profit of global service corps have committed to raising the funds to be able to do that. we need people's help. we'll encourage people to go to our website and to make a contribution and to be a part of this mission with us. this is -- it
to the u.n. dan gillerman will be with us moments away. he will give us his perspective coming up. bill: a surprise announcement from israel. president ehud barak says he is quit politics but will stay on after the january elections in israel. often seen as a moderating force and in considering possible military action. he is 70 years old. he says he wants to spend more time with his family. that news out of israel. martha: it is a very busy morning here in "america's newsroom.". ahead evidence iran has used the recent israel-gaza crisis as a bit of distraction from the rest of the world. we have details on secret operations ahead in a fox news exclusive. bill: was this a white house cover up after the days after the attacks in benghazi and the days before? there are new allegations from leading republicans on that. kt mcfarland will break it down. >> it is assumed the proportions of any other major scandal in this town. there are many layers to the onions. there are all kinds of questions that have been raises i'm only in my 60's... i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i
. if you raise the tax rates on that, on those people, it makes them less un-- less intuesday -- inenthusiastic. they have the votes so they can do it. but it is wrong, still, and it does not make a difference. it is wrong. >>stuart: if the economy sources next year as you suggest what about the year after that? how do we get back to a prosperous america? and when? >>guest: it has to happen through the elected process. in 2014, there are 33 senate seats up and 20 are held by democrats and nine are first termers so well get a huge shift in the senate and the republicans president pick up a huge percentage in the house and we have 30 governors out of 50, we have the control of state legislatures and we do control the house of representatives, as well, don't forget. it is not as though the republicans are powerless. they come back and obama will ultimately be the most disliked presidentials in history because of the handling of the economy and only because of that. >>stuart: art laffer, a pretty grim picture but thanks for joining us. now, we are fair and balanced, new democrat n
at the u.n. and e had this graphic -- he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he was, he created what was a new threshold for them. he called it a red line, but a new threshold. they had -- for the previous, i don't know, 6-12 months the israelis had been focusing on, primarily because of the defense minister, ehud barak, the zone of immunity. and what he meant was iran was going to with the character of its nuclear program, the depth, the breadth, the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program was going to reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military option. and no israeli prime minister is going to accept a situation where they face an existential threat, but they no longer have a military option to deal with it. so ehud barak was trying to identify the point at which the zone of immunity was going to kick in. now, he was saying it was going to be the end of 2012. now, he's changed that and said it's been pushed back 8-12 -- 8-10 months. when the prime minister was in new york he focused not on the zone of immunity, he focused on what's the point in
that u.n. ambassador susan rice used when she went on those five sunday talk shows, here's the picture, the famous picture of it. to talk about benghazi, but you say a few days before his office said they were responsible for editing the talking points, in a closed-door hearing the head of intelligence, james clapper, told you and other senators he didn't know who was responsible. question: two questions: where does the investigation stand? and how do you get to the bottom of it? >> well, it is like any other -- assuming the proportions of any other major scandal in this town, there are many layers to the onion and there are all kinds of questions raised, the most recent, the one you mentioned. i saw the director of national intelligence say he didn't know where the talking points were edited and now he's saying he did it. we'll be interested how that transpired. but, the biggest aspect of the whole thing is, it has to be really looked into. is why there was such a failure on the part of the administration in light of events, the two attacks on our embassy, assassination attempt on the
that shows weapons of mass destruction being used and stuff like that and it shows the un running a caravan with army trucks and taking these weapons and to syria. the fellow who did the movie to begin with got murdered. putfilm -- i'm going to some of it up on you to but you've got to see this. some of it is so graphic that i'm going to have to edit it myself before i can put it up on youtube. democrats hate soldiers. i don't know why they hate him so bad. they did not want petraeus to make that more work. this movie is going to make amends with them. guest: i look forward to seeing the evidence. but one of the great myths coming out of the war is weapons of mass destruction were taken to syria. i looked at this evidence that has been available in the best evidence i can see is there were truck convoys moving from baghdad to syria just before the american invasion. but what they were, the evidence indicates were the baath party records, personal jewelry and cash that was later used to fund the beginning of the insurgency in iraq. it was not weapons of mass destruction. there are films you
is in carnegie, pennsylvania. hi, patrick. caller: happy thanksgiving. i am profoundly un-optimistic about the state of our economy and their future. when i read about the entire presbyterian church, the methodist church, the evangelical lutheran church wanting to end all relationships with the state of israel, i think our country -- we are literally being occupied by a foreign government by the state of israel. i have to tell you, when you look at the economic apartheid on wall street where the american people are treading on one platform while the zionist regime in control of our country is trading, we are becoming a nation that is completely and utterly occupied. host: that was patrick from pennsylvania. hi, judy. caller: hi. i just want to say that my husband dave and i are very optimistic about the future. we are happy that the president won. our concern -- your last caller was talking about religion and the churches. we don't see why they should be playing a part in our government and big we are concerned about the separation of church and state. we are also concerned about the racia
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)